Decree-Law No. 131/2024, published in the Official Gazette on 16 September and in force since 17 September, introduced important changes for employers in the management of fixed-term contracts. This measure, known as the “Decreto Salva Infrazioni”, meets the request of the European Union – which started an infringement procedure against Italy – to align national legislation with the EU Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work.
In particular, the EU Commission found that the provision of a minimum and, especially, a maximum payment to the worker was not an effective deterrent against the abuse of fixed-term contracts.
The Decree in question has therefore amended Article 28, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 (“Jobs Act”), introducing significant changes regarding the compensation indemnity for damages in case of fixed-term contracts declared unlawful.
One of the most impressive aspects for companies concerns the extension of the judge’s power to set compensation indemnity exceeding 12-month instalments in cases of unlawful fixed-term contracts. Previously, when a fixed-term contract was converted into an open-ended contract, the employee was entitled to a lump sum indemnity ranging from 2.5 to 12-month instalments of the last reference salary for calculating severance pay. Now, as a result of the amendment introduced, the employer may be sentenced to pay significantly higher sums if the employee proves greater damage, such as an extended period of litigation.
Abrogation of the limit of 6 months of payments
Another important change is the abrogation of the 6-month limit on indemnity due to workers in the case of fixed-term contracts that have been declared unlawful, a limit that previously applied in the case of collective agreements that provided for procedures to stabilize fixed-term workers. Under the previous legislation, companies could benefit from this cap, reducing the economic risk associated with any disputes.
Implications
The amendments introduced by the “Salva Infrazioni” decree imply a significant change in the management of human resources for employers. In fact, they will have to pay more attention to complying with the rules on fixed-term contracts, avoiding abuses and ensuring the correct application of the rules in force. As a result, companies will have to adopt a more prudent and rigorous strategy in the use of fixed-term contracts in order to reduce the risk of expensive claims.
The Supreme Courte, by its decision no. 23852 of 5 September 2024, examined the question of the dismissal for just cause of an employee who, during a period of illness, participated in a football tournament already scheduled, thereby breaching his obligations of diligence, loyalty and fairness, thus jeopardising his recovery or return to work. The employee appealed the dismissal, arguing that the participation in a football tournament during his sick leave did not breach his contractual obligations. The company claimed that the employee had simulated illness in order to participate in the competition, thereby jeopardising his recovery and breaching the principles of fairness and good faith. The Supreme Court rejected the employee’s claim, stating that “the performance of physical activity during the period of illness <<…>> constitutes a breach of the contractual obligations of diligence and loyalty”. Furthermore, it stated that: “<<…>> sporting activity, by its very nature, may affect or delay recovery or the return to work”. Perhaps because of the particularly serious nature of the employee’s conduct, the judgment in question represents an important decision in a matter in which the case law has too often shown a tendency to tolerate conduct that raises doubts as to the employee’s true state of illness
On 16 September was published in the Official Gazette the Decree-Law no. 131/2024 (i.e. “Decreto Salva Infrazioni”) – in force since 17 September – which also intervened on the regulation of fixed-term contracts through which the European Union requested Italy to align Italian legislation with EU Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work.
The “Salva Infrazioni” decree amended Article 28, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 (i.e. “Jobs Act”), introducing significant changes regarding the compensation indemnity for damages in case of fixed-term contracts declared unlawful.
Pre-existing regulation:
In cases of transformation of a fixed-term contract into an open-ended contract, the employee is entitled to a lump sum indemnity ranging from 2.5 to 12-months’ salary of the last reference salary for calculating severance pay.
The maximum limit of the indemnity is reduced to 6 months’ salary in the case of collective agreements that provide for procedures to stabilize fixed-term workers.
Amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 131/2024:
The Decree gives to the judge power to set compensation indemnity exceeding 12-months’ salary in cases of unlawful fixed-term contracts,
Paragraph 3, which allowed the limit of the indemnity of the 6 months’ salary, is abolished.
“The use of personal data is not subject to the obligation to inform and obtain the prior consent of the data controller when personal data are collected and processed in the context of legal proceedings”. This is “provided that the data are inherent to the area of business and litigation that justifies their collection, that they are not used for purposes other than those of justice for which they were collected, and that the authorizing measure is in place”.
This has been stated by the Court of Cassation, decision no. 24797/2024 of 16 September 2024.
In detail, a few employees – each in the context of their own dispute over matters relating to their employment relationship – had submitted to the court a recording of a conversation that had taken place some years earlier between one of their colleagues and some executives of the employer company. The recording was made without the knowledge or permission of the participants. The executives involved claimed the matter to the data protection authority, which rejected the claim on the assumptions that the recording, and thus the related processing of personal data, had been carried out for purposes related to contesting charges in the context of the employment relationship. At this point, the executives appealed to the ordinary courts.
In addition to the well-established national case-law on the subject, the Supreme Court also refers to the Court of Justice (EU) which, in its judgment of 2 March 2023, C-268/21 – Norra Stockholm Bygg AB v Per Nycander AB, made it clear that “where personal data of third parties are used in a case, it is for the national court to weigh, in full knowledge of the facts and in accordance with the principle of proportionality the interests concerned” and “that assessment may, where appropriate, lead him to authorize the full or partial disclosure to the other party of the personal data thus disclosed to him if he considers that such disclosure does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights which individuals derive from Article 47 of the Charter”.
The Court of Cassation also remainds that “Articles 17 and 21 of the GDPR make it clear that, in the balancing of the interests involved, the right to defend oneself in court may be considered overriding over the rights of the data subject to the processing of personal data”.
The Court of Cassation, in its decision no. 24130 of 9 September 2024, provided important clarifications regarding the use of work permits under Law no. 104 of 1992, stating that a worker may be absent for short personal activities, such as shopping, and that this does not automatically entail an abuse of the right or a violation of the welfare purposes established by the law.
The dispute originated from an employer’s complaint against an employee who had used the so-called “104 leave” to go shopping in a market. In particular, the employer claimed that the employee had uses the leave for activities that did not refer to caring for her disabled family member and had therefore dismissed her for cause, considering that such conduct constituted an abuse of the benefit provided by law.
However, the Court of first instance had rejected the latter interpretation, emphasizing that the activity in question was marginal. In the present case, the employee had, in fact, gone shopping on her way to the home of the assisted family member. Consequently, the dismissal was considered to be unlawful, since the social purposes provided for by Law no. 104/92 had been fulfilled.
Confirming the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Law no. 104/92 does not require the worker to be present at the home of the family member to be assisted for the entire duration of the working day. In fact, the Court clarified that, although absence from work must be justified on welfare grounds, this does not exclude the possibility of carrying out other minor activities, as long as these activities do not entail a clear violation of the purpose for which the leave was granted. In fact, the judgment reiterates that leave is granted on a daily basis and not on an hourly or chronometric basis.
